Jeremy

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you look and act like a complete dork, then maybe you are. Getting warm. > merely inform your co-workers that you do not care. About them Bingo.

PeckhamRose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Go up the Shard Never really understood that euphemism... unlike "up the oxo tower" which always worked much better.

Worry not, ice cream vans have found their haven in Peckham and Penge.

Of course you pick a sensible speed for the environment, but there's only so much you can do. There has to be an element of cooperation. You think you always drive at a speed where you could stop for *any* eventuality? If you say yes then you're kidding yourself. Unless you never go above 10mph. > Cars might be "killing machines" (I think that is > absolutely stupid terminology personally I like to think of myself as Kurt Russell in Death Proof when I'm prowling the streets hunting for my victims.

No self respecting ED parent would allow their child to eat ice cream from a van. It all has to be dairy free, gluten free, organic and free range in those parts!

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > BTW when I posted earlier about cars no longer > signalling as much, I was told mine was anexdotal > evidence. But as you walk about in London, and you > cross roads, roundabouts etc are you saying you > don't notice something similar? Did I say that? Don't recall. But yeah I notice that all the time. Especially in the city in the mornings... drivers not indicating and jumping lights, pedestrians crossing without looking, cyclists bombing out of side streets onto the main road, motorbikes zooming over the bridges. It's mayhem! Seems nobody is looking anywhere except straight ahead. There are bad road users across the board, but not sure where this is going. > Circumstances will differ of course Jeremy - but > as a general rule drivers should have notice of > whats ahead and to the side of the road. That's fair, right? Maybe. Sort of. Actually no. I wouldn't want to generalise like that. If you're in a position to clearly see someone step into the road, and you have time to stop (which you should... most cars can brake very quickly) then yes the driver should probably take some of the blame. But it's not always that straightforward. I'm sure many accidents occur when there is an obstruction in the line of sight... crowded pavements, large vehicles, parked cars. There's no point "blaming" the pedestrian when they're lying on the floor in pain, but equally there's no point blaming a traumatised driver that may not have stood a chance.

Otta/SJ... again it depends on the circumstances. You can't say from a broad description ("pedestrian walks in to a road using their phone") how much notice the driver had, whether it was feasible to stop in time, etc.

The argument that a collision with a cyclist is always the drivers fault is ridiculous and downright bizarre. Such extremism would actually be doing a disservice to a worthy cause, by preventing sensible discussion.

Wow, best of luck Huggers!

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Visited the Lions Head tonight. Bit too studenty, > artsy, hipster like for me. The sutdents are mane-ly harmless...

LD, what sort of vehicle regulation would you like to see? Other than stricter/repeated tests for drivers?

Mako - I take your point on the shouting thing. But I really don't think that "they felt the risk was worthwhile" is any sort of reasonable defence at all. It's the same defence a cyclist would use for going the wrong way down a one way street or jumping a red light. The same defence a driver would use for failing to indicate or even driving after a couple of pints. There are simple steps you can take, and rules to follow to make the roads safer, and it's frustrating when people don't do it. It's also really frustrating when people appear to be making excuses for them. LD - if you have video footage worthy of prosecution, I don't understand why you wouldn't take the time to submit a couple of the worst cases to the police. Seems strange to me. Your choice though, of course.

I like the way they're mixing in para events with the regular ones, rather than splitting it out into separate competitions. I also like the way there are events in there which aren't in the olympics, yet are relevant to the commonwealth and Britain. e.g. rugby and bowls. Makes me wonder what else they could include. Snooker? Cricket? Darts?

I can only guess that Lions Head = Old Nuns Head...

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm sure you're a valued Carphone Warehouse > employee, Jeremy. If I was working at a Carphone Warehouse, I might make more of an effort! As it is, I spend most of the day sitting at my desk, and very rarely physically meet anyone from outside the company. There just doesn't seem any point wearing a nice suit or ironing a shirt! I have no need to impress anyone.

Where is the Lions Head?

LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's about inherent dangerousness. There should be a higher > standard of skill & care expected of anyone who is > in charge of anything that has the capacity to > kill or maim in the way vehicles do. Yes of course, which is surely why we have tests/licences/points/bans for drivers - and no equivalent for cyclists. Personally I do not think that more regular tests would be helpful because the people who'd need it the most would probably mentally discard everything as soon as they've passed, and go back to their old habits. How easy is it to report dangerous driving to the police? And how likely is it that the driver would get points on his licence? So many cyclists have cameras now, you'd think it would be easy to catch the worst culprits.

I actually think the main problem is the infrastructure. Cars, buses, lorries are inherently dangerous to cyclists and pedestrians - but given that they're not going anywhere, you have to think of ways to make things safer, and use the roads in a spirit of cooperation. Automatically blaming drivers of vehicles makes no more sense that always blaming the cyclist. There will always be a few idiots in the world, whichever way they choose to get around.

Where?

Enough of the victim complex. Nobody seriously thinks that cyclists who get hit are automatically at fault.

mako Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > concentration, fitness and speed more important to > cycling safety than a light on the back More tedious diversion tactics. Just because there are other (arguably) more important precautions, doesn't mean you shouldn't use a light. Just because our cycling infrastucture is behind many other cities, doesn't mean you shouldn't use a light. Just because cars pose more of a danger than bikes, doesn't mean you shouldn't use a light.

Men who get snotty about what other men wear to work! ?30 uniqlo trousers, non-iron shirt, job done.

People in the city might find it walkable from Whitechapel or Shoreditch. Also trains from DH/PR to E&C, Blackfriars, Thameslink, and Farringdon. Plus the good old number 40 bus. Yeah it's a pain, but at least there are plenty of other options.

Welcome to ED! IMO one of the nice things about ED is that you have lots of diverse neighbourhoods on your doorstep, each with its own gems in terms of things to see/eat/drink. Dulwich Village for a genteel environment, world class gallery, nice old pub Peckham for bars, good places to eat, cheap cinema, nightlife, and the best patisserie for miles around Camberwell for several excellent restaurants, plus a pub with a crazy cider selection Plus good places to eat and drink in Herne Hill, Forest Hill... hell, even Nunhead.

Yes there are dangerous drivers around on the roads, and inadequate provisions for bicycles. Surely that's a pretty good reason in itself for making sure that you can be seen clearly... instead of basically saying that there's no point.